The Evangelical Universalist Forum

about 1 cor 15

it seems that the end of DEATH is not a irrefutable argument (if we compare with the book of revelation (principalities in revelation and not in 1 cor 15 , Jesus reigns in revelation and not in 1 cor 15)
2 Chapter 21
2.1 21:1-8 concern the eternal state and 21:9 in 22:5 the millennium

The division of these chapters would have been happier, if the passage of 21:1-8 had been connected with the series of events of the ch. 20 to train(form) a continuous continuation(suite). The chain(channel) of the events ends in a very clear way at the end of v. 8 of this ch. 21. Then, since v. 9 of the ch. 21 until v. 5 of the ch. 22, us have another portion details of which are bound between them. The first eight verses of the ch. 21 are connected with a time(period) completely different from what follows. From the verse 9 of the ch. 21, we return behind, in the millennium, whereas verses (21:1-8 which precede are the most complete narrative which God supplies on the new heavens and the new earth(ground), in the proper sense of these expressions. This scene(stage) is later(posterior) than the reign of thousand years, than the big white throne, and of course, than the complete dissolution of heavens and earth(ground) from now on, who(which) are

Huh???

excuse me the web site where i take these words and the web site of translation does not work very well

2.1 for the eternal state 21:1-8 and 21:9 to 22:5 the millennium

The division of these chapters would have been happier if the passage of 21:1-8 had been attached to the series of events of ch. 20 to form an uninterrupted. The chain of events ends fit neatly at the end of ver. 8 of c. 21. Then, from ver. 9 of c. 21 to ver. 5 of c. 22, we have another portion whose details are linked together. The first eight verses of ch. 21 relate to a period quite different from what follows. From verse 9 of c. 21, we return back to the millennium, while the verses (21:1-8) above are the most complete account that God provides for new heavens and new earth, in the true sense of those terms. This scene is after the thousand-year reign, the great white throne, and of course, to the complete dissolution of the heavens and the earth now, which are still present when the throne is established. Then, when this quick description of the eternal state is complete, the Spirit of God adds additional, or appendix, very important, on the state of things during the millennium. Nothing about this situation was given at the mention of this millennium era in history that will result from Apoc. 19 to 21:8.

2.1.1 No nation and no cure in the eternal state

It may be objected to this by saying: On what authority do you base to divide the chapters in this way? Why not take the c. 21 whole as applying to a single period, and have probably even those who made the division of chapters? Why not assume that what is said of the new Jerusalem in the fifth. 10, refers to the same date as what is said in ver. 2? - The answer is simple. In the eternal state, God has to do with men, all distinctions of time have ceased; there is then neither kings, nor nations. But this is precisely what we find in the first eight verses. Take for example, ver. 3: "And I heard a great voice from heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be with them, God ". If we look at the last part of ch. 21, we again are dealing with nations and of earthly kings. “And the nations will walk by its light, and kings of the earth bring their glory into it” etc… When eternity begins, God has finished acting with things that are in the order of the world, like kings, nations, or other arrangements of a temporal nature. All this implies a government, a government and assumed that there struggling to repress. This is not the eternal state we have in the last part of ch. 21, but a previous state of affairs which the first verses (1-5) of c. 22 complete the description. There is mention of a tree, “and leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations” (22:2). In other words, the time referred to this verse, there will not only nations, but these nations will need healing, and God will supply what their condition demands. For mind without prejudice, that’s something to be satisfied that at c. 22, the Spirit of God does not refer to the following the last judgment, when all that is related to the world will be completely ended, but that He returns to a previous state where God still governs. It should be noted also that, in the part relating to the millennium (that is to say from 21:9), we have names related to the dispensation, as the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb ; it is not so in ch. 21:1-8 which is related to eternity, and God be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).

2.1.2 Other historical tables in the Apocalypse

Another remark can still help convince, it is the usual way in which God made the historical tables in this book. I say this to show that in the presentation of the arrangement of events as I understand, I’m not going to argue in favor of something unprecedented. Take for example the c. 14. We saw a very regular series of seven-time events, the fall of Babylon is in third place in the order. After that comes the judgment of the worshipers of the beast, and then the Holy Spirit declares blessed those who die in the Lord, then, the Lord’s judgment is presented in two ways, as the crop harvest, and as the pressing of the harvest (harvest contained a discriminating judgment, and the vintage judgment of mere revenge). Babylon is here very clearly its place assigned by God. But long after, in prophecy, when the Spirit of God showed us the vials of the wrath of God, we again Babylon, whose fall is given in the seventh section. This is important because the Holy Spirit begins to describe the character and conduct that necessitated such a terrible visitation of God’s hand. In this case, the Holy Spirit made us go to bed. 14 events after the fall of Babylon, up to the Lord’s coming in judgment, then it jumps back in bed. 17 and 18 to show us details of Babylon and its relationship with the beast and the kings of the earth.

However, it seems to me that this is exactly the order of events of ch. 21. There is a striking similarity in how the heavenly Jerusalem and Babylon are introduced, and although no doubt there is a very strong contrast and very marked between the two, however, it is fairly obvious, I think he , that the Holy Spirit had both at once on His mind. Thus, in Revelation. 17:1, it says: “And one of the seven angels which had the seven bowls came and spoke, saying, Come hither, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who sits on many waters.” Such is the statement made when the vision goes back to Babylon and describe his fate. This is exactly the same way what the vision introduced corresponding to c. 21, which goes back to see the bride, the Lamb’s wife. “And one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues came and spoke, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” Just as Babylon was a definite place in the historical sequence of events, and once completed this sequence, the Holy Spirit stopped to retrospectively disclose details of his ways which have, so to speak, forced God to judge, - exactly the same way, the wife of the Lamb, the new Jerusalem, is seen in these two characters in the final outline of the history that goes until the end. And now, the Holy Spirit comes back, even describing the New Jerusalem in connection with the millennial reign, and the kings and nations who will be on earth.

To c. 19:7 we have the bride, the Lamb’s wife, who is preparing. To c. 21:2 we have the new Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God, still fresh from the beauty of bride, while over a thousand years have passed. But now, at ch. 21:9, the fact is very important that the bride, the Lamb’s wife, is the holy city Jerusalem. "And one of the seven angels … came and spake unto me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he carried me away in spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me [not the big city, but] the holy city, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God "(21:9-10). John was called to see the wife, and when he looks, he sees the heavenly Jerusalem. Thus, if we have the wife in relation to the Lamb c. 19, and in relation to the eternal state as the holy city, New Jerusalem, c. 21:1-8, verses 9 and 21 following in this chapter we show that in the interval between the marriage of the Lamb and the new heavens and new earth of the eternal state, the wife plays a very blessed before God and men. This is the manifestation millennium of the Church.

May these few introductory remarks prepare the way, and prove that I advance nothing that can not be demonstrated when I take the first eight verses of ch. 21 as a direct result of events ch.19 to 20, and considering the rest of this chapter 21, from verse 9, as a retrospective description of the state millennium. Obviously there are the strongest reasons in favor of this interpretation, and it seems to me that any other is truly out of the question, if we weigh the correct context. Impossible for a person educated in the Word and unprejudiced, who carefully considers the circumstances described here, can assume that the following verse 9 can be concurrent with the immediately preceding section. These are, as we have already noticed, two incompatible states of affairs.

it seems that revelation 21:9 to 22:5 talks about the millenium (Jesus reigns, there are principalities) so maybe 1 cor 15 talks about the end of the millenium :<> means no death for the believers

thank you for your help

It should be noted also that, in the part relating to the millennium (that is to say from 21:9), we have names related to the dispensation, as the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb

I’m not entirely sure what your source is trying to claim, but Jesus definitely reigns in 1 Cor 15.

“For He [Christ the Son] must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is the-death.” (15:25-26)

And I don’t know what your source means by “principalities” being in Revelation’s judgment (apparently not talking about chapters 21 and 22, so talking about chapter 20?) yet not in 1 Cor 15. But 15:28 indicates that once all things are subjected to Him, the Son Himself will also (in the same way) be subjected to the Father; and 15:24 (with 25) indicates that the Son shall reign until He has abolished (same verb as in v.26 for “the death”) every rule and every authority and power. Paul there uses a phrasing that he elsewhere connects to spiritual rebels against God whom God defeats and Christians struggle against. In fact the two times Paul uses the term translated in King James’ English as “principality” for those lists, he always connects it directly to the term translated here as “authority”. So yes, the principalities and powers, the spiritual rebels against God (up to and including “the death”) are in 1 Cor 15, too.

(Edited to add: having read somewhat further, your source appears to mean physical territories ruled by kings. But there is nothing intrinsically illogical about there still being territories ruled by kings after the lake of fire judgment; after all, the general resurrection of the wicked as well as the good will have happened! But then of course that must mean the wicked resurrected kings of the earth are repenting and coming into the city of the New Jerusalem and bringing their previously rebel subjects with them, much as happened for the surviving rebel people in the millennium reign, including in Ezekiel’s visions. Eventually all rebels rulers and people even among the resurrected rebels will be subjected to Christ in the way that Christ is subject to the Father, and then the prophecy of 21:2-3 will be fulfilled as will the finale to the eschaton prophecies of 1 Cor 15.)

One problem with the theory is that the lake of fire judgment at the end of chapter 20 definitely occurs after the millennium. So the series of events in chapter 20 do not form a continuous continuation with 21:9 through 22:5 (leaving aside 21:1-8, which I agree is a flashforward to the final result) if 21:9-22:5 are supposed to be about the millennium.

Another problem is that while John doesn’t talk much about the millennium reign in 20:1-6 (with Satan’s final worldwide rebellion briefly mentioned before the lake of fire judgment after the thousand years in verses 7-15), Ezekiel does. And in Ezekiel’s prophecy of the millennium reign, there is definitely a temple (although not in Jerusalem) made by hands although with some supernatural help, and Jerusalem is rebuilt directly with penitent human skill not descended from the heavens. There shall also be day and night and seas in Ezekiel’s visions of the millennium reign, but not in John’s vision of the reign of the New Jerusalem.

John does admittedly reference some language and imagery from Ezekiel’s vision of the millennium: kings of the earth, former rebels against God and oppressors of Israel, repent and become loyal subjects, bringing their people and riches–but into the new Temple complex set up in a miraculously elevated mountainous territory 30 miles or so north of Jerusalem where worship of Jehovah takes place, not into the millennium Jerusalem. (Jerusalem in Ezekiel’s millennium visions will be the seat of government for the province of Israel, with a Davidic prince, but not the seat of government for the whole world. That will be in the new temple complex and territory north of Jerusalem under Jehovah. Similarly, the Lamb rules from the new temple complex in Ezekiel, not from the human made Jerusalem.)

John also like Ezekiel sees a stream of living water flowing out from Jerusalem to bring life. But John sees this flowing from the New Jerusalem which descends from heaven (very much larger than even Ezekiel’s new temple complex), and the life it brings is spiritual life to those who repent of their sins and wash themselves and drink of it. Ezekiel sees this flowing from the manmade Jerusalem of the millennium, and it creates rivers which turn the salt seas fresh (including apparently the Dead Sea). Certainly one is a prefigurement of the other, but aside from fulfilling practical purposes (involving seas which don’t exist anymore in John’s vision of the New Jerusalem) Ezekiel’s vision of rivers healing the salt seas is clearly an enacted prophetic symbol of the river of life healing rebel sinners later after the lake of fire judgment (who were often poetically envisioned in Jewish imagery as being trapped as spirits and animals in the oceans and large lakes after the flood. Compare with Rev 20:13 preceding the lake of fire judgment: the sea gives up the dead which are in it, and death and hades give up the dead which are in them, and death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire.)

So there are some similarities to the millennium situation, but also significant differences. One of the similarities is that evangelism continues after the lake of fire judgment. One of the differences is that the full resurrection of the good and the evil has happened after the lake of fire judgment, which had not happened yet in the millennium reign. This allows people already redeemed to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in evangelizing the remaining impenitent sinners who are not allowed to enter the New Jerusalem until they have slaked their thirst with the freely given water of life and washed their robes clean. (This may not be fulfilled literally–the imagery may be poetic. But it is not merely poetic: it means something more and larger than what the imagery signifies.)

I do however agree with your source that Rev 21:1-8 reveal what the final result will be. (And that result is definitely not something that includes eternal conscious torment!) But verses 1-8 connect directly and topically with the verses following them, not with the millennium reign; or else verses 1-8 connect to the millennium reign and not after the lake of fire judgment (except they clearly do); because the new Jerusalem seen descending in 2:2-3 is the same New Jerusalem seen descending in verses 10ff, which your source regards as a flashback to the millennium reign! Also the statement made by God Himself in verses 3-8 are directly related to information and declarations made out through the end of chapter 22 (and not stopping at verse 5 either).

There is a clear topical unity from 21:1 through 22:17–they have to be talking about the same basic situation (even if verses 1:3-4 talk about the final goal not yet realized in later descriptions), not about two different situations. The only reason for supposing there is some sort of topical division is because there is obviously effective evangelizing still going on, as might be admitted for living people in the millennium reign (per many Old Testament references, including in Ezekiel), but which non-universalists deny for the resurrected wicked (if not also for the wicked in hades before resurrection).

I may have more commentary on your extended quote from your source later. (I actually would agree that the New Jerusalem most likely represents the living Church of Christ which is one reason why there is no temple in it, although there may also be a physical New Jerusalem to descend from the heavens; and of course I would quickly agree that the saints of Christ will have a key role in evangelism in the millennium reign, too.)

thank you Jason PRATT for this answer, it seems strong
i need to take my time to really analyse your answer

thank you Jason PRATT you have strong arguments
i have an idea: maybe God in revelation 22:1 is the father and the holy spirit, they are on one throne with Jesus: but only the father reigns, why not?
are we sure that “God” doen’t also refer to the holy spirit here? i recognize that it seems stupide if we read 21:22

it seems stupid (my supposition) with revelation 3:21

Also, 22:1 itself refers to the (single) throne of “the God” and “the Little-lamb”, just like 3:21 and 22:3 (and just like 21:22 indicates Lord the-God Almighty is the temple of the New Jerusalem and the Little-lamb.)

Whereas, I don’t recall anywhere that the Holy Spirit per se is ever envisaged or presented as sharing the one throne with the Father and the Son (or as ruling from any throne at all).

This is one reason why some people (not myself) regard the Spirit as only a creature or only as the person(s) of the Father and/or the Son spoken of in a different way than usual.

It is also one reason why some people (myself included) regard the Spirit as proceeding from the Son as well as from the Father instead of from the Father alone.

i am sorry but i have a new objection
revelation 3:21 speaks about people who will be on the throne of Jesus
they can’t reign as Jesus, they are not God the son
so maybe when the son is on the throne of the father he will be subjected , in soumission to the father
not reigning as the father
i hame sorry of this objection, maybe it is not totally refutable
believe me, i really wich of all my heart that UR is true
no one of my family never declare believing in the good doctrine
i really wish that they will have a loving relationship with God at a future time

While the verse does have Christ saying that those who overcome shall be granted permission to sit on His throne with Him as He also overcame and sat down with His Father on His throne, at no time (in RevJohn or elsewhere, but especially in RevJohn!) are Christians or anyone else shown actually sitting on the throne except God and/or Jesus; on the contrary all creatures, including loyal worshipers of God/Christ, are shown subordinately relative to the throne of God (casting down crowns at the feet of the throne etc.) Moreover, twice an angel stresses that only God Most High is to be worshiped: and the second time this happens, the angel has been explicitly sent to speak for Jesus in identification with God Most High! (In other words, the angel isn’t himself Jesus.)

So there are strong contextual constraints against anyone else receiving the worship (much moreso the identification) proper to Jesus: Jesus is not merely one of the creatures (per unitarianism), nor is Jesus personally identifiable with the Father (per modalism), nor are we personally identifiable with both the Father and the Son (per some extreme types of modalism!), nor are the Father and the Son only elevated creatures who can also come to be like the Father and the Son (per Mormonism or other polytheistic Christianities if there are any).

Also, since Jesus as well as “God” is identified as being the Alpha/Omega/beginning/end, and as sitting on the throne; and since Rev 21:1-8 has many parallel themes and structures to 22:6-16; and since Jesus is “the Lord the God of the spirits of the prophets” Who “sends His angel” to speak for Him to John in the latter verses; then the Person of the Son is probably intended to be included at Rev 21:1-8, even though there God (the Father) would be talking about God (the Son) coming as God Himself to tabernacle with His people. Yet 21:1-8 is agreed to be a flashforward beyond the point where there is no more sin and death. Consequently, the Son still reigns on the throne in some sense after evil is no more, as God reigns eternally in heaven, even though present with man on Earth.

Consider the following argument:

Premise 1.) The Son reigns at some time (whether or not at every time / eternally) on the throne with the Father.
Premise 2.) The Son is always in submission to the Father and is never not submitted to the Father. In other words, the Son never rebels against the Father.
Conclusion 1.) The Son may reign on the throne with the Father while still being in submission to the Father.

Even many non-trinitarian Christians tend to agree with premise 1 (whether at only one time or at all natural times or even eternally in some way above all natural times); and if trinitarian theism is true then the Son shares the authoritative reign of the Father in relation to every natural space and time.

All Christians everywhere of every kind agree with premise 2, unless they deny a personal distinction between the Father and the Son (and even they would agree with this premise by a poetic figure), or unless they consider the Son to be a sinner at some point! (Very liberal and sceptical ‘Christians’ may go this far.)

The conclusion follows validly from the premises: the Son may and does reign while being in submission to the Father.

But even if somehow the Son did not reign at all anymore in any way (regardless of sharing the throne with the Father somehow still), after all things have been subjected to Him (or perhaps only to ‘him’) as He subjects to the Father–even if that was somehow true, it still wouldn’t change the concept of all things being loyally subjected to Him (or to ‘him’) as He is loyally subjected to the Father.

The subjection at 1 Cor 15 must be parallel in loyalty. Whether the Son ceases to reign only in one way or in every way is irrelevant to that. The contexts make no sense if the rebels cease to exist so that only loyalists survive; and the contexts make no sense if the rebels continue to exist in subordination as rebels.

Anyway, we will pray that your family comes to have a loving relationship with God someday. :slight_smile: